What Measures can be Taken to Address the Problem of Climate Change?
Currently, climate change is the most challenging global problem. Climate change is caused because of alterations in the Earth’s atmosphere due to gases emitted from farm animals, transportation and manufacture. These gases include carbon dioxide, methane and others which are called greenhouse gases (GHG). The worldwide observed impacts of climate change include pressure on freshwater, rise in sea levels and changing weather patterns. Moreover, in most parts of Asia, climate change is causing flooding and draughts resulting in damage to agriculture and human life. Consequently, it is supposed that by the end of this century because of more greenhouse gases climate change threatens the economic system and availability of natural recourses (Hansen et al., 2006). Although climate change is a great catastrophe to humanity, there are strategies that can prevent it such as afforesting lands, changing eating habits, implementing carbon taxation and using renewable energy sources.
The first solution to the problem of climate change is afforestation. It refers to replacing lands into forests using fast-growing species. As trees play a crucial role in the global carbon cycle, afforestation activities could sequester the high amount of carbon from the atmosphere. According to Bjorn, this strategy provides 20 percent of total effort needed to stop climate change (2010). Afforestation is effective climate change mitigation option in terms of its price because it offers carbon sequestration at moderate cost. In fact, afforested land removes about 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide in a year and costs 8-20 dollars for per ton of carbon dioxide (Bjorn, 2010). Therefore, afforestation has already been used as an inexpensive solution to climate change in countries such as USA, Canada, Ukraine, Finland and Netherlands. For instance, Ukraine originated Wooded Steppe Zone through afforesting lands and the total expenditure used to remove one ton of carbon dioxide was $9, which is considered comparatively low-price (Nijnik, 2005). On the other hand, large-scale afforestation means less cropland area resulting in higher food prices. Delince et al. suggest that by 2050 because of more forested areas food price will increase by 39 % (2015). However, when afforestation size is limited, it will not impact on food price negatively. In order to balance land use the need for an agricultural land should be calculated and remained area should be used for afforestation purposes. For instance, Ireland is one of the countries that follows this strategy, more specifically, it calculated need for agricultural area and used other available land to afforestation which was 4.6 million hectare and avoid problems related to food prices in 2015 (Council for Forest Research and Development, 2016). In short, afforestation is effective carbon remover with any negative effects if its scale is limited.
Changing eating habits can be the second climate change mitigation option. While deforestation, construction of new buildings and transportation have been a target for countries as causes of climate change, the effect of food industry mostly has been left out. However, the food industry is the main source of indirect carbon emissions. By changing eating habits such as consuming less meat and purchasing organic foods individuals could reduce emissions resulting from food consumption by 85% (Chris, 2007). Firstly, it is necessary to consume less meat to fight against climate change. The chief reason for this, farm animals release greenhouse gas called methane, which is more than 25 times effective comparing to carbon dioxide in the heating atmosphere (Sue et al., 2007). Thus, not consuming meat can dramatically alter climate change. Secondly, people must buy organic foods because unlike conventional foods during harvesting they do not require fertilizer, which is the main contributor of climate change because of its chemical structure. In Denmark with the support of government supermarkets are selling mostly organic products to lessen harm that comes from climate change. As a result of it, the majority are becoming organic food consumers and country is decreasing the high amount of greenhouse gases that come from fertilizers ( , 20 ). However, most people will be unwilling to buy organic foods because of their high prices. In that case, the government should inform population about disastrous risks of non-organic foods and the expenditure that will be used to recover their effects on climate change in order to convince them to consume only organic foods. It can be done with the assistance of training and educative programs through media such as radio, internet and television. After that changing eating habits of individuals will be easier to implement as the solution for climate change.
The third solution to the problem of climate change is carbon taxation. The government can lessen carbon emissions that come from human activities through pricing them. ”Carbon taxes are often advocated as one of the best methods to discourage the use of carbon intensive fuels.”(Barrie, 2009, p 204).The reason to this is that tax is easy to perform comparing to other climate change mitigation policies such as afforestation and change eating habits. In the implementation of carbon tax the only activity that is needed is appraise emissions. According to Sue et al., if countries do not introduce regulations about carbon emissions, people will continue to damage the atmosphere with their polluting behavior (2009). Those behaviors can be observed in constructing modern buildings, travelling a lot by airplane and cutting trees. Therefore, important step to stop these activities will be making people liable for their polluting behavior by charging them. Most countries such as Canada, United States and Sweden have already chosen carbon taxation as their policy to the climate change effects. For example, Sweden has used a carbon tax and cut carbon dioxide by 20% during the years 1998 and 2008 (Richard et al., 2009).The argument against the carbon tax is that it could damage the economy of the countries. Barrie et al. suggest that carbon tax slows the economy through adding more costs for industrial purposes and creating unemployment (2009). However, if government uses tax revenue to diminish other taxes, carbon tax will not affect negatively to economy. As an example, in 2010 Australia’s annual revenue from carbon tax was $24 billion and the country utilized it to reduce other types of taxes such as income taxes (The Treasury, 2011). Therefore, when revenue from taxes is used in appropriate way carbon taxation fasters economic growth and lowers GHG.
The fourth and leading solution to climate change is producing electricity from renewable energy sources. Annually more than 25 billion tons of carbon dioxide is produced when fossil energy sources are burnt (Volker, 2010). On the other hand, the renewable energy sources are pollution-free and can provide everything that fossil fuels offer in terms of energy services. As Volker states, ”Renewable energy sources guarantee complete energy requirements with no pollution” (2010, p295). It is possible to design air cars that work with hydrogen generated through solar and wind power, buildings can be constructed using renewable-based power generation and factories can use them in the manufacturing process. Therefore, currently renewable energy sources generate 17 % of total electricity, which is not sufficient to avoid catastrophic effects of climate change. In order to reduce more emission and lower average temperature use of renewables should be doubled by 2030 (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2015). Renewable energy sources are the most effective solution to climate change problem because they do not possess restriction and the implementation of them is easy and affordable. Firstly, it is easier to use from technology for renewables instead of digging underground to obtain coal or gas. With regard to price, for producing renewable energy money is needed for only construction and technology that will be used within the process. Sources such as heat and the wind free of charge because they are taken from nature. The technology costs also have decreased and continuing to decline to make renewables even more inexpensive. For instance, wind is the cheapest energy generator with the cost of 4 cents for per kWh electricity (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2015). Furthermore, renewable-based power sources can be used in large scale because as the name indicates they renew themselves and they are not limited. For example, hydropower generates energy through water from rivers. The energy renews on its own because the Sun evaporates the water and the rain provides river with water again (Volker, 2010). Overall, replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources will reduce greenhouse gas emissions drastically and stop climate change.
To conclude, climate change is a threat to the environment and human life with its catastrophic effects such as heat waves, hurricanes and floods. Thus, it is urgent to fight against it by growing trees, consuming organic foods, implementing the carbon tax and utilizing renewable energy suppliers. It is not easy to implement first three policies because of limitations that they possess. However, all provided limitations can be overcome through the involvement of governments that were mentioned above. Although all these provided solutions provide needed efforts to stop climate change, renewable power sources are the best climate change mitigation option with their viability and affordability. For successful climate change action, the share of renewable sources should be doubled in all electricity industries.
Reference
Barrie, A. (2009). Climate Change: The Science, Impacts and Solutions, 2nd ed. Australia: CSIRO Publishing.
Bjorn, L. (2010). Smart solutions to climate change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chris, G. (2007). How to live a low-carbon life.London: EARTHSCAN.
Council for Forest Research and Development. (2016). UNECE Forestry and Timber Market Statement for Ireland 2015.Ireland: COFORD.
Delince, J., Ciaian, J., Lanzi, E. and Magne, B. (2015). Economic impacts of climate change on agriculture. Journal of AppliedRemote Sensing.9, 097099.Available from http://www.journals.elsevier.com [Accessed 4 December].
Hansen, J., Sato, M., Ruedy, R., Lo, K., Lea, D.W. and Medina Elizade, M. (2006). Global temperature change. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 14288-14293. Available from http:// www.nasa.gov [Accessed 30 October 2016].
International Renewable Energy Agency. (2015). Rethinking Energy: Renewable Energy and Climate Change. Abu Dhabi: IRENA.
Nijnik, M. (2005). Economics of climate change mitigation forest policy scenarios for Ukraine, Climate Policy, 4(3), 318-336. Available from http://www.fs.fed.us.[Accessed 4 December].
Richard, B., Benedict, K. and Bryce, R. (2009).Climate Finance.Regulatory and Funding Strategies for Climate Change and Global Development.New York: New York University Press.
Sue, R., David, C. and Fergus, N. (2009).Adapting Buildings and Cities for Climate Change, 2nd ed.London: Architectural Press.
Volker, Q. (2010). Renewable Energy and Climate Change. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.